What led to a consumer court mandating the Railways to pay Rs 1.45 lakh in compensation to a passenger? The district consumer disputes redressal commission concluded that the complainant experienced direct harm due to the inadequate service provided by the Railways.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi ruled in favor of a passenger, Ajoy Kumar, mandating Northern Railways to compensate him for the loss of his luggage stolen during a train journey from Delhi to Patna on the Mahananda Express in 2014. The total compensation awarded amounts to approximately Rs 1.45 lakhs.
Presiding over the case, Commission President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and member Ashwani Kumar Mehta determined that the passenger had experienced considerable loss due to what they deemed “deficient service” by the railways.
The order clarified that the definition of deficient service includes
“any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance required in any service.”
It was found that the Railways’ negligence directly contributed to the theft of the passenger’s luggage, which contained both clothes and valuable jewelry.
Despite the Railways’ defense, led by the Station Master of New Delhi Railway Station, arguing their non-liability for un-booked or undeclared items as stipulated under Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, and asserting that the Station Master should not be held accountable in this scenario, the Commission rejected these claims.
They referenced a prior ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the case of Indian Railways and Ors. v Uma Agarwal, which established that the Railways could indeed be held liable for such losses and that complaints of this nature could be entertained at the boarding point due to the Railways’ nationwide operations.
Moreover, the Station Master’s attempt to highlight the delayed filing of the First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent consumer complaint—10 months and two years after the incident, respectively—did not sway the Commission. It was noted that the complainant had made initial attempts to register an FIR through the Traveling Ticket Examiner (TTE) and later followed up with the Railway Police Force. However, the Railway Police only acknowledged the theft without initiating formal proceedings.
Ultimately, the commission directed Northern Railways to pay Rs 1,20,000 to cover the lost luggage and an additional Rs 25,000 for the mental anguish and distress caused to the passenger.
The compensation for the luggage also included a 9 percent interest rate applied from 2017, when the consumer complaint was officially filed, until the payment is completed.
This decision underscores the accountability of service providers under consumer protection laws and reinforces the rights of passengers to seek redress for losses incurred due to service deficiencies.
CASE TITLE:
Ajoy Kumar v Station Master
READ/DOWNLOAD ORDER-
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Railways
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
